How can you possibly judge the reasons and motivation for them coming to Australia without knowing anything beyond what you've seen in the press? Surely there are dozens of valid and honourable reasons for them to risk their lives to come to Australia? Frankly, calling them grubs and parasites without any understanding or knowledge at all is offensive and arrogant.We are training them over-there , these grubs are just parasites , if they don't give a sh*t about there home land , imagine what sort of loyalty they will have for Australia ?
How can you possibly judge the reasons and motivation for them coming to Australia without knowing anything beyond what you've seen in the press? Surely there are dozens of valid and honourable reasons for them to risk their lives to come to Australia? Frankly, calling them grubs and parasites without any understanding or knowledge at all is offensive and arrogant.
I just don't think that's a reasonable conclusion to draw without any idea of the reasons behind their actions.Doc , they are abandoning their families & country , running away from a conflict we are spending Aussie lives to save , thats why
You argued against taking on more refugees; asylum seekers; a greater humanitarian intake; unskilled migration; certain ethnic groups; non-English speaking migrants; and skilled workers who left less developed nations to come here.On this thread I have not argued against migration per se.
At no point did you suggest “an optimal rate and mix of migration”. You used decade old data for criminality that extrapolated one State’s experience to represent the national experience, despite their being no evidence this was the case. You chose to ignore the fact that the best available information suggests that non-Australian born have a criminality rate less than Australian born.I have argued that an optimal rate and mix of migration must be sought, so that the std of living and future environmentally sustainable economic viability of the country is not heavily compromised.
In the past 5 years Australia created 1.2 million new jobs, had a relatively steady GDP, our lowest employment rates and our highest ever migrant intakes. This countered your assertion that we couldn’t accommodate 100,000 migrants without lowering per capita GDP.Some in the thread cannot or will not debate what is a viable level of migration, because their thoughts are not evolved enough to clearly delineate what is reasonable debate of such and what might be purveyed as racism.
....the lower birth rate of caucasians in developed nations is a result of a poorer std of living....the stress of job insecurity, dual income families out of need not choice, indebted to the eyeballs from school, high cost of housing, poor infrastructure, higher health care costs, lack of security in retirement etc etc....and this is your idea of wealth....
You provided little to debate. Responses to my posts were peppered with exaggerated and false assumptions, silly labels, and contrived conclusions that deliberately misrepresented what I stated. You walked no "middle path".And it is sad that this same lack of delineation is continuing to compromise debate of these extremely important issues in the media. It is sad because it shows there is not enough maturity and subtlety of intelligence amongst some, to walk the middle path through these issues and find a more favourable outcome for all. Instead, the migration debate is shut down and demonized by PC extremists and elites who think they will benefit from downwards pressure on the minimum wage.
Immigration should only be permitted on the basis as if it is a job interview. The best applicants get the job, in the national interest. Not anyone who applies like the ability to be an Australian citizen is a worthless handout, like our passports are junk mail given to any who would wish it.
They should let more backpackers stay here. They speak English, their education is high, they are by and large peaceful and many want to stay. It is ridiculous to kick them out and let other people in who hate this country and are avowedly against our laws and system of government.
Your conclusion states all people who fail to obey the law of the land should be kicked out, yet you support the English speaking backpackers who knowingly discard our immigration laws. A fine example of Hypocrisy...
All English backpackers knowingly discard our immigration laws? My my, they must have a big jail somewhere full of about 10 million people.
I never said "ALL" only those who disregard our laws, read before you get on the mantra of "my, my" and ohhh Dear-ism.
yet you support the English speaking backpackers who knowingly discard our immigration laws.
I did read, you said:
When I never said anything of the sort. The only available inference from the sequence of sentences is that you believe all English backpackers are immigration lawbreakers. Who said anything about supporting lawbreakers? Only you. Just for the record, any lawbreakers, whether English backpackers or otherwise, were not going to be part of my immigration program. But did I really need to say that? Perhaps only for you.
You provided little to debate. Responses to my posts were peppered with exaggerated and false assumptions, silly labels, and contrived conclusions that deliberately misrepresented what I stated. You walked no "middle path".
What does kicking backpackers mean? As you alluded in your post. I might have misunderstood...
You have little capacity to stay on task.Clearly, you do not apply yourself to the issues I have raised because you are not adequately informed and you offer emotion and ego in its place. And no greater consistency has there been in this thread than that..
You have little capacity to stay on task.
You shift the goalposts whenever the game gets away from you.
You are doing it again.
If you want a debate about sustainability, open another thread.
If you want to debate the infrastructure issues confronting States, open another thread.
If you want to compare Australia to California, open another thread.
In the meantime I look forward to anything more here that invites interest.
You should know better. Positive correlations do not imply causality. Nor are the underlying points tested for validity.OK, just address these two points when you are good and ready.
-the positive correlation between migration and the failure of publicly funded infrastructure and service delivery to keep up.
- the positive correlation between Australia's rising net foreign debt and higher migration over the last 25 years.
It means that after their 6 month visas run out, these people have to go home when loads of them want to stay. And they should be allowed to stay.
You should know better. Positive correlations do not imply causality. Nor are the underlying points tested for validity.
For as long as I have been reading newspapers - and it's more than 25 years - the hue and cry for more infrastructure has gone out. This issue is a furphy.
I've been reading newspapers longer than 25 years AND catching public transport....so I call your furphy and raise you.
I've never heard of a Melbourne transport congestion tax being raised before recently, and Melbourne's main roads didn't need tolls when I was younger.....where's all our extra migrant tax revenue going do you think?
On foreign debt and migration there is a pretty simple explanation. In boom times we need overseas capital to finance industry, and we need overseas labour to address labour shortages. There is no need to correlate the obvious.
Stop clutching at straws, and get back to the nub of the thread's theme.
Stay on task.And it isn't just industry that has increased foreign borrowing....resi mortgages rely on it too.....check out what's happening with fixed rates in the last few weeks.
Stay on task.
You need to show the material impact of migration on company takeovers, etc..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?